Every once in a while...

...I need to explain that this blog is called Shellfish because I think the "silly shellfish argument" is ludicrous. That does not mean that I think revisionists and gay activists are ludicrous. Far from it, they are forces to be reckoned with. In my opinion they are idealists,true crusaders, and if their cause is right they would be a great blessing to the church. However, when they are wrong, they are dangerous, and as we see in the mainline churches, quite capable of derailing the train, sinking the ship, or whatever, choose your metaphor.

Go here to see the shellfish argument laid out and taken apart.

In the last few days though, we have seen a new version of silly shellfish. Statements like the following can only need to a quite new religion. It comes from a commment left below, so I hope the author will not think I am not out of line by posting it here, but all I am doing here is what I might do in the comment section itself. Having gone back and forth a few times with her already, and concerned that the person is already doing some ministry and perhaps preparing for a career in it, it is legitimate concern:

"To be honest I think that we could be back and forth for days and days because one of the beauties of the scripture is that it is able to speak through many times, with the stories of many people (some more sinful than others) and even when God is violent or nonviolent, male or female (though more rightly probably male AND female), homosexual or heterosexual that the omnipresent message of the text is that God is with us and God saves us." (you'll find that in commments here)

I wrote the following in response which I put here not that it is utterly brilliant, but because I do not want anyone to miss it, and it is for practical reasons almost as much as our wish that this silly game would end:

Megan, I myself am not going to answer all your questions. I wish you well, but the way to help you is to refer you to someone else who can take you under their wing and point out your recklessness, lack of training in logic, the principles of hermeneutics, and the value and meaning of tradition. You live in a seminary community, right?

What I mean is this. You try to make the point that Luther had no problem with lesbians, but only male homosexuals because you know of a place where he says men should not try and be like women. You cannot argue that a person is neutral or negative on an issue because their opinion on certain subjects is not on record. If the record is silent, it is silent; it cannot endorse the question you bring to it.

This is sort of like the problem that people have when they want to argue that Jesus endorses homosexuality because he does not explicitly condemn it. He doesn't condemn everything that Scripture condemns--if he did the NT would be as many pages as the OT. However, when he endorses marriage as between a man and a woman, that taken with the fact that he says he came not to abolish the law would negate the proposition that Jesus endorses same sex marriage. But beyond that, the Christ does speak of sexual immorality:

Revelation 21:6-8 He also said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the one who is thirsty I will give water free of charge from the spring of the water of life. 7 The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur."

You'll note that that also has implications to the argument that it doesn't matter so much what sins we do since we are all sinners.

Megan, from what you've written in the last few days, you simply must understand that your position is antinomian. You have been condemned by Luther himself.

You think the Bible is beautiful because you can spin out many explanations. No, the bible is beautiful because it speaks of salvation and does this by pointing out our need for salvation and the promise of God to save those who accept their need for a savior.

In the future if you want an answer from me keep it to one question (some writers might get paid by the word, we don't).

Now, any of the rest of you have the time, please go at it. But do be nice and remember, Jude is in the canon, that is, the reason we do apologetics, especially with people who work in the church, especailly with seminarians, is not to prove we are right, but because the answer matters, and if it doesn't have eternal consequesnces we should all resign the pastorate and put up the counselor's shingle, or better yet, run for political and not ecclesial office.

Peace and blessed Holy Week,
Shrimp


Also, rethink your positions. Try out your arguments on someone who is not a radical (I'm sure you can find one in the Bay area if you try hard). Have a good day!